• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Faces Backlash Over New Corporate Powers In Secret Trade Deal

BlackAsCoal

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2013
Messages
702
Reaction score
234
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration appears to have almost no international support for controversial new trade standards that would grant radical new political powers to corporations, increase the cost of prescription medications and restrict bank regulation, according to two internal memos obtained by The Huffington Post.

---

New standards concerning access to key medicines appear to be equally problematic for many nations. The Obama administration is insisting on mandating new intellectual property rules in the treaty that would grant pharmaceutical companies long-term monopolies on new medications. As a result, companies can charge high prices without regard to competition from generic providers. The result, public health experts have warned, would be higher prices around the world, and lack of access to life-saving drugs in poor countries. Nearly every intellectual property issue in the November chart is opposed by a broad majority of the 12 nations. The December memo describes 119 "outstanding issues" that remain unresolved between the nations on intellectual property matters. The deal would obligate nations to develop many standards similar to those in the United States, where domestic prescription drug prices are much higher than costs in other nations.
Obama Faces Backlash Over New Corporate Powers In Secret Trade Deal

Obama is and has been nothing but a corporatist shill.

'Hope and change' my ass.
 
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration appears to have almost no international support for controversial new trade standards that would grant radical new political powers to corporations, increase the cost of prescription medications and restrict bank regulation, according to two internal memos obtained by The Huffington Post.

---

New standards concerning access to key medicines appear to be equally problematic for many nations. The Obama administration is insisting on mandating new intellectual property rules in the treaty that would grant pharmaceutical companies long-term monopolies on new medications. As a result, companies can charge high prices without regard to competition from generic providers. The result, public health experts have warned, would be higher prices around the world, and lack of access to life-saving drugs in poor countries. Nearly every intellectual property issue in the November chart is opposed by a broad majority of the 12 nations. The December memo describes 119 "outstanding issues" that remain unresolved between the nations on intellectual property matters. The deal would obligate nations to develop many standards similar to those in the United States, where domestic prescription drug prices are much higher than costs in other nations.
Obama Faces Backlash Over New Corporate Powers In Secret Trade Deal

Obama is and has been nothing but a corporatist shill.

'Hope and change' my ass.

It is copyright protection that allows the massive investment in developing the new drugs in the first place. If unable to "price gouge", for a limited period of time, then how is one expected to fund R&D for creating these new miracle drugs? If everyone is allowed to simply (and immediately) "reverse engineer" a new product, and crank out "low cost" clones of its own, then who is going to bother to fund the massive R&D effort to create the new product in the first place?
 
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration appears to have almost no international support for controversial new trade standards that would grant radical new political powers to corporations, increase the cost of prescription medications and restrict bank regulation, according to two internal memos obtained by The Huffington Post.

---

New standards concerning access to key medicines appear to be equally problematic for many nations. The Obama administration is insisting on mandating new intellectual property rules in the treaty that would grant pharmaceutical companies long-term monopolies on new medications. As a result, companies can charge high prices without regard to competition from generic providers. The result, public health experts have warned, would be higher prices around the world, and lack of access to life-saving drugs in poor countries. Nearly every intellectual property issue in the November chart is opposed by a broad majority of the 12 nations. The December memo describes 119 "outstanding issues" that remain unresolved between the nations on intellectual property matters. The deal would obligate nations to develop many standards similar to those in the United States, where domestic prescription drug prices are much higher than costs in other nations.
Obama Faces Backlash Over New Corporate Powers In Secret Trade Deal

Obama is and has been nothing but a corporatist shill.

'Hope and change' my ass.

It is not just Obama, it is both parties. Each candidate last year spend a billion dollars each on their campaigns for the presidency. Where do you think most of that money came from? From corporations, Wall Street Firms, Lobbyist, special interest, big money donors like koch and Soros etc. The same goes for the senate and house races. I don't have a list yet for 2012 who gave what to whom, I haven't been able to find it, but here is a list of names who gave to both parties and candidates in 2008, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, UBS AG, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, Bangkok of America, Exxon/Mobil and on and on.

Now why would all these folks give to both parties? I can tell you it wasn't their civic mindedness. They want whoever wins to owe them, to be beholden to them. They want to be able to say to our elected leaders, I want this tax break, this subsidy, this contract, this piece of legislation passed, if you won't do it, then next election I will give all my money to the other party so you won't be able to run a credible campaign.

Both major political parties owe their heart and soul to corporations, special interests who provide the bulk of their money to finance their campaigns. Which ever party has the most incumbents will receive the most money from these special interests as they usually win. But they also cover their butts and give some to the challengers just in case they win. This way, no matter who wins, they are covered. The winner will always owe them.
 
It is not just Obama, it is both parties. Each candidate last year spend a billion dollars each on their campaigns for the presidency. Where do you think most of that money came from? From corporations, Wall Street Firms, Lobbyist, special interest, big money donors like koch and Soros etc. The same goes for the senate and house races. I don't have a list yet for 2012 who gave what to whom, I haven't been able to find it, but here is a list of names who gave to both parties and candidates in 2008, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, UBS AG, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, Bangkok of America, Exxon/Mobil and on and on.

Now why would all these folks give to both parties? I can tell you it wasn't their civic mindedness. They want whoever wins to owe them, to be beholden to them. They want to be able to say to our elected leaders, I want this tax break, this subsidy, this contract, this piece of legislation passed, if you won't do it, then next election I will give all my money to the other party so you won't be able to run a credible campaign.

Both major political parties owe their heart and soul to corporations, special interests who provide the bulk of their money to finance their campaigns. Which ever party has the most incumbents will receive the most money from these special interests as they usually win. But they also cover their butts and give some to the challengers just in case they win. This way, no matter who wins, they are covered. The winner will always owe them.

You are absolutely right on point. :applaud
 
It is not just Obama, it is both parties. Each candidate last year spend a billion dollars each on their campaigns for the presidency. Where do you think most of that money came from? From corporations, Wall Street Firms, Lobbyist, special interest, big money donors like koch and Soros etc. The same goes for the senate and house races. I don't have a list yet for 2012 who gave what to whom, I haven't been able to find it, but here is a list of names who gave to both parties and candidates in 2008, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, UBS AG, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, Bangkok of America, Exxon/Mobil and on and on.

Now why would all these folks give to both parties? I can tell you it wasn't their civic mindedness. They want whoever wins to owe them, to be beholden to them. They want to be able to say to our elected leaders, I want this tax break, this subsidy, this contract, this piece of legislation passed, if you won't do it, then next election I will give all my money to the other party so you won't be able to run a credible campaign.

Both major political parties owe their heart and soul to corporations, special interests who provide the bulk of their money to finance their campaigns. Which ever party has the most incumbents will receive the most money from these special interests as they usually win. But they also cover their butts and give some to the challengers just in case they win. This way, no matter who wins, they are covered. The winner will always owe them.

well said. The plutocrats own our electoral system. It's run by Big Money - why is Congress even allowed to own stocks?
A blind trust at minimum. These people legislate.

Anyways,,Obama is a corporatist shill...that is true. For those whom thought otherwise - WAKE UP!!
 
well said. The plutocrats own our electoral system. It's run by Big Money - why is Congress even allowed to own stocks?
A blind trust at minimum. These people legislate.

Anyways,,Obama is a corporatist shill...that is true. For those whom thought otherwise - WAKE UP!!

:applaud
 
If they are secret, how does Mr. Carter know about them?

Mr. Obama is my president.
 
Protesters Creatively Expose Obama's Secret Trade Deal that Would Give Corporations Immense Power (Photos)
Activists dropped banners and marched in a “Fast Track” train to draw attention to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement that corporations are trying to quickly make law.

September 25, 2013

Imagine a law that would allow corporations to sue countries whose labor laws, environmental legislation or food safety regulations result in a loss of profit. Well, it has a name: the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This agreement would further undermine the last traces of our democracy by allowing corporate power to permeate through various areas of our society.

And it’s all being negotiated in secret. About 600 representatives of corporate-interest groups, including Walmart, Monsanto, Chevron and Halliburton, have been advising the White House on the new agreement. Meanwhile, Congress has been completely left out of the matter, and now corporations want to “fast track” the legislation in order to quickly make their dreams come true. This process, known as Trade Promotion Authority, allows the president to sign legislation into law without congressional approval. Congress will then only get to weigh in with an up or down vote on the matter, without expert testimonies, hearings or opportunities to make amendments. This could all happen within the next few months.

http://www.alternet.org/activism/activists-protest-trans-pacific-partnership-dc
 
fr: link above
This process, known as Trade Promotion Authority, allows the president to sign legislation into law without congressional approval.
this is blatant abuse of executive powers -Congress has to ratify treatys. I'm not sure if Cogress delegated this, or the executive just glommed it up.

It HAS TO STOP -we are passing the point of a Unitary POTUS, and hreaed toward a freking Imperial POTUS.
Turley: Obama's "Become The Very Danger The Constitution Was Designed To Avoid" | Video | RealClearPolitics
JONATHAN TURLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he's not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He's becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power in every single branch

SCOTUS won't act; I did see Jonathan Turley testify the othere day about executive powers....no one cares.

we are undermining any semblance of seperation of powers
 
Pharmaceutical companies are given BOTH exemption from anti-trust laws AND copyright/patent protect - allowing them to literally extort you with your own life. Pay ANYTHING that company wants or die, because no other company can sell it, even if the independently discovered it. Plus of the company that holds the copyright/patent decides NOT to sell it, you can't buy it from anyone.
 
It is copyright protection that allows the massive investment in developing the new drugs in the first place. If unable to "price gouge", for a limited period of time, then how is one expected to fund R&D for creating these new miracle drugs? If everyone is allowed to simply (and immediately) "reverse engineer" a new product, and crank out "low cost" clones of its own, then who is going to bother to fund the massive R&D effort to create the new product in the first place?

True enough, it takes a massive amount of money to develop a new medication, and no one will do it without the promise of big returns.

The problem with the profit motive when it comes to developing new drugs is that it motivates the development of the most profitable drugs, not necessarily the ones that will result in the most benefit to humanity.

The other problem is that the pharmaceutical companies spend more on advertising and promotion than they do on development. Every other commercial played when there is no political campaign is for a pill of one sort or another.

One would think there must be a better way, but I'm not sure just what it would be. Government financing of medical research? That would be the obvious alternative, but would likely have some unintended consequences of its own.
 
True enough, it takes a massive amount of money to develop a new medication, and no one will do it without the promise of big returns.

The problem with the profit motive when it comes to developing new drugs is that it motivates the development of the most profitable drugs, not necessarily the ones that will result in the most benefit to humanity.

The other problem is that the pharmaceutical companies spend more on advertising and promotion than they do on development. Every other commercial played when there is no political campaign is for a pill of one sort or another.

One would think there must be a better way, but I'm not sure just what it would be. Government financing of medical research? That would be the obvious alternative, but would likely have some unintended consequences of its own.

Some good points there. Obviously a drug company wants to create a better treatment/prevention, not a cure. Just as it is better to build a car for $10K that lasts 10 years than to build a car for $15K that lasts for 20 years, but better to buy a car that costs 50% more and yet lasts twice as long. Unfortunately, we can only buy what is built (or make our own). ;)
 
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration appears to have almost no international support for controversial new trade standards that would grant radical new political powers to corporations, increase the cost of prescription medications and restrict bank regulation, according to two internal memos obtained by The Huffington Post.

---

New standards concerning access to key medicines appear to be equally problematic for many nations. The Obama administration is insisting on mandating new intellectual property rules in the treaty that would grant pharmaceutical companies long-term monopolies on new medications. As a result, companies can charge high prices without regard to competition from generic providers. The result, public health experts have warned, would be higher prices around the world, and lack of access to life-saving drugs in poor countries. Nearly every intellectual property issue in the November chart is opposed by a broad majority of the 12 nations. The December memo describes 119 "outstanding issues" that remain unresolved between the nations on intellectual property matters. The deal would obligate nations to develop many standards similar to those in the United States, where domestic prescription drug prices are much higher than costs in other nations.
Obama Faces Backlash Over New Corporate Powers In Secret Trade Deal

Obama is and has been nothing but a corporatist shill.

'Hope and change' my ass.


Mornin BAC. :2wave: Here is some more insight into the play with the Corporatism.



The Democrats' Authoritarian Health "Reform" Bill and the Ascendency of Corporatism in the Democratic Party



"[Obama and Clinton] Democrats learned never to go to war against the combined forces of corporate America. Today, whether it is on the stimulus, on health care, or any other issue, the Obama administration and the Congressional leadership go out of their way to court corporate interests, to win corporate support and to at least divide corporate opposition."

The differences between progressive New Deal liberals -- what Howard Dean termed the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" -- and corporatist liberals or "New Democrats" were largely papered over for the past 8 years by common opposition to the free market absolutism and neoconservative foreign policy of the Bush administration. In terms of health care reform, they were papered over by the hopes of many progressive liberals -- who were willing to give up fighting for Medicare-For-All as politically "impractical" -- of achieving a robust public option as an acceptable compromise in the context of a larger health insurance mandate.

For many of these progressive liberals, the idea of the public option, at least at the beginning, was that it would be so large and successful that it would prove the superiority of government-run health insurance over private profit-driven health insurance and would eventually evolve into a single payer system. They watched, with increasing concern, as a large and robust public option was first turned by House Democrats into a small and puny public option that would insure only a handful of Americans and provide little competition to private insurers, and then as the public option was dumped entirely by Senate Democrats, with no help by President Obama to defend it.

As a result, the past two weeks have seen a revolt from much of the progressive base of the Democratic Party, articulated by people like Howard Dean, Marcos Moulitsas, Keith Olbermann, Ed Schultz, and by organizations like MoveOn, The AFL-CIO, SEIU, and Progressive Democrats of America. The ideological fault line between progressive Democrats and corporatist "New Democrats" has split wide open.

Obama campaigned, at least on the level of political imagery, as a progressive liberal. His campaign slogan was "Yes We Can", taken directly from the '60's era slogan of Cesar Chavez and The United Farm Workers Union, "Si Se Puede". He evoked the imagery of Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement. He talked about overthrowing the influence of special interests and lobbyists and transforming the way Washington does business. He promised transformative "Change" (although, as some critics pointed out at the time, he left the direction of "Change" so vague that voters of various stripes could read what they wanted into it). That's why a majority of progressive Democrats supported Obama over Hillary Clinton in the primaries, particularly after the more populist John Edwards withdrew. They didn't want to see a return to the centrism, corporatism, and triangulation of Clintonism.

But from the moment he was elected, Obama has governed not as a progressive liberal but as a corporatist liberal. Progressive liberals hoped Obama would be like FDR. Instead, he's been like Bill Clinton on steroids.

Obama's economic advisors, such as Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, were all drawn from the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party. His foreign policy advisors were all liberal hawks like Hillary Clinton or even Bush administration veterans like Robert Gates. From day one, Obama continued Wall Street Republican Hank Paulson's financial policies of throwing money at the banks while demanding next to nothing in return in terms of making credit available to average Americans and small businesses or creating new jobs.

When it came to health care "reform", Obama's strategy was to cut deals with for-profit health care corporations. He cut a deal with big Pharma to continue banning Medicare from negotiating for lower drug prices and to continue banning consumers from buying cheaper drugs from Canada. He cut a deal with the for-profit hospital industry that there would be no effective national public option that might pay them lower rates that the for-profit insurance oligopoly. While he gave mild rhetorical support to the public option, he did nothing to actually fight for it , and, as Russ Feingold has pointed out, Joe Lieberman was really doing Obama's work in killing it.

Because of Obama's rhetorical and imaging skills, it has taken until the past week or two, with the death of the public option, for progressives to begin to wonder whether Obama was really their friend. And what's most remarkable, by teasing them with the hopes of a public option, he's so far held onto the vote of virtually every Congressional liberal for an essentially authoritarian corporatist health care bill......snip~

Miles Mogulescu: The Democrats' Authoritarian Health "Reform" Bill and the Ascendency of Corporatism in the Democratic Party
 
It is copyright protection that allows the massive investment in developing the new drugs in the first place. If unable to "price gouge", for a limited period of time, then how is one expected to fund R&D for creating these new miracle drugs? If everyone is allowed to simply (and immediately) "reverse engineer" a new product, and crank out "low cost" clones of its own, then who is going to bother to fund the massive R&D effort to create the new product in the first place?

If it is so necessary and incredible profit can be rationally explained, why secret deals?
 
Mornin BAC. :2wave: Here is some more insight into the play with the Corporatism.

The Democrats' Authoritarian Health "Reform" Bill and the Ascendency of Corporatism in the Democratic Party

Miles Mogulescu: The Democrats' Authoritarian Health "Reform" Bill and the Ascendency of Corporatism in the Democratic Party

Good morning to you good brother. :0)

This speaks to where the real battle is brewing within the Democratic Party. It is the corporatist wing of the party .. the Clintonites aganist the liberals. This is much like the battles of 2006, where the liberals stood against the DLC and turned the midterms into a success.

When Obama rejected the DLC in 2008, he fooled many into believing that he was a progressive.
 
It is copyright protection that allows the massive investment in developing the new drugs in the first place. If unable to "price gouge", for a limited period of time, then how is one expected to fund R&D for creating these new miracle drugs? If everyone is allowed to simply (and immediately) "reverse engineer" a new product, and crank out "low cost" clones of its own, then who is going to bother to fund the massive R&D effort to create the new product in the first place?

I get the point of recooping R&D costs, but unfortunately not everyone is "gouged" the same. It appears that the American people always seem to have to suck it up while other countries get an awesome deal (e.g., Canadian drugs).
 
Because politically it really pisses off his base.....

Or, it further reveals to his base that he's not one of them ..

.. Or, incredible profit on life-saving drugs cannot be rationally explained.
 
If it is so necessary and incredible profit can be rationally explained, why secret deals?

To keep from admitting to giving special deals to US big business interests that supply that, all important, campaign cash, obviously. Our congress critters, from both parties, do this constantly, and the POTUS signs these special deals into law. The less aware that the sheeple are then the less explaining (denying?) of that basic reality is required.

Just as it is never said that added taxes levied on corporations/businesses are simply passed along to the end consumer as higher prices. It sounds very "fair" to tax "the rich" but only if the sheeple continue to think that they are not actually the ones being stuck with paying that added tax bill. ;)
 
Good morning to you good brother. :0)

This speaks to where the real battle is brewing within the Democratic Party. It is the corporatist wing of the party .. the Clintonites aganist the liberals. This is much like the battles of 2006, where the liberals stood against the DLC and turned the midterms into a success.

When Obama rejected the DLC in 2008, he fooled many into believing that he was a progressive.


Yep.....and now it is all coming out to play and to think the Clintonites have had CNN in their Pocket all along. Although he has pulled some surprises with the FP.....which there he just got some people upset. Including his own.
 
Or, it further reveals to his base that he's not one of them ..

.. Or, incredible profit on life-saving drugs cannot be rationally explained.

Sure it can....Profit motive is one of the benchmark reasons we are where we are today in nearly everything, from life saving drugs, to the plastics that make it possible for you to type what you are now typing on that marvel of technology you are using now.

To say it is unfair to make a profit, would be to deny the world of inventions.
 
To keep from admitting to giving special deals to US big business interests that supply that, all important, campaign cash, obviously. Our congress critters, from both parties, do this constantly, and the POTUS signs these special deals into law. The less aware that the sheeple are then the less explaining (denying?) of that basic reality is required.

Just as it is never said that added taxes levied on corporations/businesses are simply passed along to the end consumer as higher prices. It sounds very "fair" to tax "the rich" but only if the sheeple continue to think that they are not actually the ones being stuck with paying that added tax bill. ;)

That would be called the proverbial 'nail of the head.'
 
Obviously you guys are all just hatin on Obama because he is black.
 
Sure it can....Profit motive is one of the benchmark reasons we are where we are today in nearly everything, from life saving drugs, to the plastics that make it possible for you to type what you are now typing on that marvel of technology you are using now.

To say it is unfair to make a profit, would be to deny the world of inventions.

No one suggests that profit should not factor into the issue. What I said was incredible profit. There are a plethora of studies that demonstrate that incredible profit here cannot be justified .. and that's why this is done in secret.
 
No one suggests that profit should not factor into the issue. What I said was incredible profit. There are a plethora of studies that demonstrate that incredible profit here cannot be justified .. and that's why this is done in secret.

So who decides "incredible"? Shall we go by percentage, or gross dollar amount? What's fair? And why should fairness factor into it...We aren't a socialist country, at least not yet, and not totally.
 
Back
Top Bottom